Friday, August 24, 2012

Looking for Kids' Books? Avoid This Propaganda

Did you know that genetic engineering (GE) "is helping to improve
the health of the Earth and the people who call it home"? A trade group
funded by Monsanto wants your kids to believe it.

The Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) has published a kids' book
on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that purports to give kids "a
closer look at biotechnology. You will see that biotechnology is being
used to figure out how to: 1) grow more food; 2) help the environment;
and 3) grow more nutritious food that improves our health."

If that book doesn't appeal to you, you could try a nanotechnology coloring book
made by a company that produces such things as "colloidal silver
nanoparticles" used in antibacterial products that find their way into
the water supply and can be poisonous to the human system. It compares
nanotechnologies like these silvers to "the smell of baking cookies."

Or perhaps a "biosolids" workbook made by wastewater treatment facilities? It directs kids to grow sunflowers in toxic sewage sludge to see how they grow.

Monsanto Brainwashing: GMO Myths for Kids

GMO Kids Book (Source: Council for Biotechnology Information)Monsanto and its cohorts among the "Big 6"
pesticide and GMO companies -- Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Bayer, Syngenta,
Dupont, and BASF -- are fighting a battle with California voters on
whether or not GMO foods should be labeled. In the meantime, the trade
group CBI, whose membership consists solely of those six corporations,
is busily educating children on the supposed benefits of GMOs.

Note that the industry uses the term "biotechnology" exclusively.
According to Stacy Malkan, a spokeswoman for the Yes on 37: California
Right to Know Campaign, "Polls show that the term 'biotechnology' is
viewed much more favorably than 'genetically modified' or 'genetically
engineered food.' Yet the term most easily recognized and understood by
people is 'genetically engineered food.' So they are obviously trying to
change the language for PR purposes, not accuracy or clarity." The
choice of terms is a subtle example of the transfer or association
technique to project positive qualities of one concept onto another.

On page four, the book asks, "How can biotechnology help the health
of the Earth and its people?" It directs kids to "look closer" and use
the decoder at the side of the page to figure out three ways that
biotechnology helps us. The answers are at the end of the book.

Strangely, some of the hazards associated with GMOs, such as a large increase in pesticide use (383 million more pounds) and possible liver and kidney damage, are not listed.

Nano Coloring Book

Benzene Nanogears to color (Source: NanoSonic)In
"nanoscale," one nanometer equals one-thousandth of a micrometer or
one-millionth of a millimeter. Nanoparticles can occur in nature, but
there is now an entire industry devoted to turning all sorts of minerals
and other substances into nanoparticles that give consumer products
certain properties. For instance, nanosilver has been added to dozens of
consumer products for its antimicrobial qualities. Artificially
produced nanoparticles are now being added to paint, cosmetics,
sunscreen, vitamins, toothpaste, food colorants, and hundreds of other
consumer products, without sufficient review of their safety.

But a coloring book produced by NanoSonic, a manufacturer of
nanoparticles and nanomaterials, implies kids should not worry. After
all, it explains, there are nanoparticles in "the smell of baking
cookies." Many of the images waiting to be colored are of items found in
nature, like fractals and bird feathers. These are cheek by jowl with
images of nanoparticles like benzene nanogears (image at left; benzene
is a known carcinogen).

Although minerals occur in nature, we've long known that overexposure
to certain minerals is toxic. According to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), high doses of copper,
for instance, damage liver and kidneys and can lead to death even
though copper in tiny amounts is a micronutrient essential to human
health. "Nano," of course, refers to the size of the particles, not the
size of the dose or exposure.

According to
the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), "Despite already
being commercially available, nanomaterials in sunscreens, cosmetics,
foods and food contact substances are unlabeled and largely untested for
their human health effects. Existing research raises red flags,
indicating that nanomaterials have the ability to enter the bloodstream
through contact with the skin, ingestion and inhalation, as well as move
in the natural environment once discarded."

Some scientists are concerned that certain nanoparticles may be particularly hazardous to children.
Many sunscreens, for example, contain nanoparticles of zinc oxide or
titanium dioxide, which are potentially harmful in their nanoform.

For some products like spray-on sunscreen, nanoparticles make the
sunscreen more easy to apply. Scientists like Dr. Philip Moos of the
University of Utah's Nano Institute is worried
that children might actually ingest this nano-sized zinc oxide,
particularly from these spray-on sunscreens that carry warnings about
"excessive inhalation." Dr. Robert Schiestl of the University of
California Los Angeles found in a 2009 study that titanium dioxide
nanoparticles cause systemic genetic damage
in mice and increase the risk of cancer and concluded, "I believe the
toxicity of these nanoparticles has not been studied enough."

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has no immediate plans to review evidence of ingredient toxicity, according to the Environmental Working Group.

Sludge Workbook

Growing Plants in Sludge (Source: King County Wastewater Treatment Division)The "biosolids" workbook
published by the "Biosolids Program" of Kings County in Washington
State (the Seattle area) suggests that kids try growing sunflower or
marigold seeds in composted sewage sludge as well as in different kinds
of soil to see which grow best.

Toxic sewage sludge
is the material left behind after human and industrial waste is
processed at wastewater treatment plants to clean and separate the
water. The workbook activity doesn't suggest using gloves or any
protective gear, even though some of the toxic contaminants found in
virtually every sewage sludge sample tested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in 2009 include 27 heavy metals, four volatile organic compounds,
dozens of pharmaceuticals, several steroids and hormones, and multiple
kinds of highly toxic flame retardants.

The workbook talks about the supposed benefits of treated sewage
sludge -- "biosolids contain all the essential nutrients that plants
need for healthy growth[,] . . . are rich in nutrients and organic
matter, and are used as a soil amendment to improve soil and fertilize
plants" -- without mentioning any of the toxic contaminants listed
above. These toxics are especially hazardous to children and pregnant
women. A follow-up article to the influential Chicago Tribune
series on flame retardants, for example, exposed that small doses -- "no
more than 3 milligrams per kilogram of weight per day" --of the flame retardant "Firemaster 550," promoted as safe by industry and government officials, "can trigger obesity, anxiety, and developmental problems."

Toxic sludge also commonly contains
endocrine disruptors, phthalates, industrial solvents, resistant
pathogens, and perfluorinated compounds, which can bioaccumulate in
soil, plants, and animals. All good reasons not to have kids planting
seeds in it. The workbook reads like a follow-up to the "sludge puppet" on which the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) previously reported, also made to educate kids about the joys of sludge.

Kids' Propaganda

As CMD's PRWatchhas reported,
industries and their front groups "target . . . America's teachers and,
ultimately, our children . . . trying to justify everything from
deforestation to extinction of species . . . . Surreptitious public
relations campaigns and deceptive advertising are battling today for the
hearts and minds of our children." John Borowski, an environmental
science teacher, reported that teachers at the 2000 National Science
Teachers Convention were "quickly filling their bags with curricula as
corrosive as the pesticides that the Farm Bureau promotes."

Twelve years haven't changed the way spinmeisters operate. Corporate
propaganda like this is distributed online, handed out at conferences
and fairs where these corporations, agencies, and their front groups
exhibit, as well as at teachers' conventions like Borowski describes.

WASHINGTON - August 24 - The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) today launched a national petition
on SignOn.org asking Michelle Obama to pressure President Obama to
honor his 2007 campaign promise to support the labeling of genetically
modified foods. The petition also asks President Obama to endorse
California’s Proposition 37, a Nov. 6 citizens’ ballot initiative that
would require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food
ingredients.
“Michelle Obama is a champion of better nutrition in school lunches
and of ending childhood obesity,” said Ronnie Cummins, executive
director of the OCA. “We believe that if she is truly serious about
children’s health issues, she will support labeling of genetically
engineered foods. We urge her to put pressure on the President to honor
his campaign promise to support GMO labeling and to officially endorse
Prop 37.”
In 2007, candidate Obama, made this statement
to a crowd of voters in Iowa: ‘We’ll let folks know whether their food
has been genetically modified, because Americans should know what
they’re buying.”
National polls indicate that more than 90% of Americans want GMOs
labeled. And yet, President Obama has continued to green light a flood
of new GMOs, including genetically engineered alfalfa, salmon, and 2,4 D
“Agent Orange” corn. He has not publicly supported any of the state or
national efforts to require mandatory GMO labeling, despite his campaign
promise.
The FDA does no pre-market safety testing on genetically engineered
foods, instead relying on the word of Monsanto, Dupont and other biotech
companies that these foods are safe. However, a growing number of
studies link genetically modified foods to a host of health issues,
including obesity and allergies. Even the American Medical Association
has recently warned that GMO foods need to be safety-tested before they
are placed on the market.
“Nearly 80% of all non-organic processed foods in the U.S. contain
GMOs,” Cummins said. “Without labeling, it is very difficult to keep
these foods out of our – and our kids’ – diets. Worse yet, as long as
consumers don’t know when they are eating genetically engineered foods,
they can’t trace health issues, such as allergies, to the genetically
engineered ingredients in their food.”
In a visit to an elementary school in January, in Alexandria, Va., Mrs. Obama said:
“We have a right to expect the food (our kids) get at school is the
same kind of food we want to serve at our own kitchen tables.”
“We encourage everyone who believes in the right to know what’s in
their food, to sign this petition today,” Cummins said. “If Mrs. Obama
hears from hundreds of thousands of voters on this issue, we hope she’ll
be able to persuade the President to do the right thing, and keep his
word.”
If Prop 37 passes in November, California will become the first state
in the country to require what nearly 50 other nations in the world
already require: labels on genetically engineered foods.

###

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and
grassroots non-profit 501(c)3 public interest organization campaigning
for health, justice, and sustainability. The OCA deals with crucial
issues of food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering,
children's health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental
sustainability and other key topics. We are the only organization in the
US focused exclusively on promoting the views and interests of the
nation's estimated 50 million organic and socially responsible
consumers.

Argentina to Maintain Use of Agrochemicals

Susana Marquez couldn't stop crying when she heard the sentence in
the courtroom in Cordoba. She was hoping that the men accused of
spraying the town of Ituzaingo with agrochemicals would serve a prison
sentence. But that did not happen.

Two of them were found guilty of environmental contamination and
sentenced to three years probation… The third one was acquitted of all
charges.

"Nobody went to jail. This trial shows that in this country there is
only justice for the rich, for farmers. Nobody cares for the poor", said
Maria Godoy who lives in Ituzaingo, not far away from the provincial
capital.

'They are murderers'

Susana Marquez has had 15 miscarriages and of the two children she
was able to deliver both were born with heart defects. Only one of them
is still alive. Lourdes is seven years old and blood tests show high
levels of agrochemicals in her system. Susana blames two ranch owners
and a pilot who are currently on trial for spraying her town with
pesticides and herbicides.

"They are murderers how they sprayed the area indiscriminately. This
is no coincidence. I lost 16 babies because [of] those beasts. And I
live in fear because my daughter is sick, we have no money to pay for
the surgery she needs", she told me.

It all started when the newborn baby of Sofia Gatica, one of the
mothers, died of kidney failure in the same town in 1999. That's when
women in this poor town started to gather information about what was
going on. They realised that cancer rates in their town where at 40 per
cent higher than in other parts of the country. A study carried out in
2010 showed that 80 per cent of the tested children here had
agrochemicals in their blood.

The ranch that was fumigated by land and air is one street away from many of the houses where people later on got sick.

Argentina is the world's third-largest soybean exporter and its
economy has become highly dependent on it... Much of that soybean is
grown in Cordoba where farmers use large quantities of agrochemicals
like the glyphosate.

Those behind the lawsuits hoped the trial would put industry
standards on the stand as well. But Government officials say there is no
need for any major policy changes. "I don't think that Argentina's
productive system has to be transformed. What they have to do is respect
the thousand or fifteen hundred meters imposed when there are people
living in the area," said Argentina's Human Rights Secretary, Andres
Fresneda.

In spite of the anger and disappointment in the courtroom, lawyers
insist that the trial was a milestone. "This is important because it has
proved that some types of fumigation are a crime. This means that from
now it won't be a mistake if somebody sprays a town and people will know
that they can go to jail," said one of the victim's lawyers. He says
that the trial will set a precedent as it's the first time that somebody
is sentenced to prison for spraying in a banned area.

Scientists had hoped the sentence will set an example in Latin
America. "Multinational companies have the complicity of the state but
there is no doubt about the damages involved for human health of some
types of pesticides. We hope that the sentence of the trial will set a
precedent about the consequences of large scale farming", said Andres
Carrasco from the Molecular Embryology Laboratory of the University of
Buenos Aires School of Medicine. His studies published in the magazine
"Chemical Research in Toxicology" have shown the damage caused by
glyphosate in amphibian embryos even in smaller amounts than those used
in agriculture.

But the lawyers of those accused insist the illnesses of Ituzaingo
are not only related to agrochemicals. They also claimed they could also
be the consequence of arsenic found in the water and electrical
transformers that used to be placed in the town.

"This trial has been filled with ideologies between those who are
against large scale farming and those who are not. The mistake is to put
on the trial of three people what should be a national debate about
agrochemicals and then reconsider Argentina's economic model. Those
accused where using approved agrochemicals", said Sebastian Becerra, one
of the defence lawyers.

Five Year Investigation, Thousands of Sick and Dead Dogs, Tainted Jerky Still on the Shelves – FDA Refuses to Exercise Authority

WASHINGTON - August 24 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today
asked the Inspector General to review the Food and Drug Administration’s
handling of an investigation of tainted jerky treats for dogs made in
China. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been investigating
consumer complaints for five years while the death toll rises. The FDA
has issued three low profile warnings, unbeknownst to the vast majority
of dog owners. Dangerous products are still on the shelves and sold in
markets across the country.

In April of this year, after meeting with
Congressman Kucinich, the FDA sent investigators to the manufacturing
plants in China where the jerky is produced. The FDA was not allowed to
fully investigate the factories and was denied the ability to take samples.
In response, the FDA buried the inspection reports on their website
after a four month delay without explanation and with little context.

“The FDA has the legal authority to ban these imports, but they have abdicated their responsibility,” said Kucinich.

“The
Chinese manufactures won’t test the raw materials they use. They won’t
allow samples to be tested in the United States and they even deny
receiving consumer complaints. It’s absurd and it is unacceptable.

“What in the world is going on at the FDA
when over 2000 incidents of poisoning by an unknown substance and
stonewalling by Chinese manufacturers does not result in a product
recall or import ban? We know two things. There are sick or dead dogs
and the FDA is either sick or dead. Have we reached the point where the
FDA can’t be trusted to protect the public interest?” said Kucinich.

“The FDA has also defended its failure to act
by claiming it cannot act on complaints alone. If, after five years of
investigating, the FDA still has no more clues about the chemical or
biological culprit than the original consumer complaints, the competency
and/or integrity of the investigation is called into question. I do not
make this statement lightly,” wrote Kucinich in the letter to the Inspector General.

The old logic of the slave plantation is still
the logic of our industrial food system, 500 years in the making.
There’s a new way of thinking taking off.

Imagine that you are in room. It’s about 30 by 30 feet. The floor is
stone, and the walls and ceiling are a mix of stone and cement. They
are a little damp, which you can smell but you can’t quite see. It’s
pitch black except for the light that comes in from a low, arched
doorway in whose frame is silhouetted an iron gate. When your eyes
adjust to the darkness, you can see a narrow stretch of beach and the
blue and gray of the ocean beyond.

This, a doorway in West Africa's Elmina Fort, is a Door of No Return.
It is the last part of Africa you would touch if you were a slave being
led from the dungeon to a waiting ship.

I stood in front of this door a few years ago while visiting my
family in Ghana. It is a place of sorrow and suffering. Countless human
beings passed by this spot on their way to either a wretched death at
sea or a life of bondage in the New World. They had been snatched up
near their villages in slave raids; ripped from their families and
everything they knew; shackled to others by the neck for a long march to
coast; and thrown in a crowded, reeking dungeon for what might have
been months until the next ship arrived. That was just the start of the
journey.

This door represents many things. As human beings, it represents our
capacity for cruelty—as well as resilience. Many of the descendants of
those who went through it not only survived, but went on to build the
"New World" itself. They paved the way for every opportunity I have had
in the United States, and I believe their story makes us all stronger.

But this door also represents a beginning—the beginning of our modern food system.

If, back in the 18th century, you could see all the way across the
Atlantic, you would find an unbroken line of plantations that stretched
from Buenos Aires to Baltimore. Down this entire line, slaves harvested
sugar for British tea, rice for the West Indian consumption, and cotton
for the textile mills of New England. These were vast monocrops that
broke the body and ruined the soil—but made money for planters and big
companies that traded the goods.

Here, you see the logic of the modern industrial food system in its
rawest form—a logic of prioritizing profit over human and environmental
welfare. A lot has changed in the 400 years since the Elmina Fort was
built, but this principle has not gone away. The logic of the plantation
is the logic of today’s industrial food system.

In this system, it is in the interest of the middleman—large
companies that dominate the processing and distribution of food—to
squeeze farmers and externalize costs. The industrial model may work for
some things, but it's time to admit that it doesn’t work for food. It
doesn’t work for Lucas, a tomato-picker in Florida, who toils from dawn
to dusk without protection or health care and still cannot escape
poverty. It’s not good for the farmers in Illinois who have nearly been
bullied out of existence by Monsanto. It's not good for teenagers in
Brooklyn who, when asked how many of them have diabetes or know someone
with diabetes, raise every hand in the room. And it’s certainly not good
for the 99 percent of us who are left holding the bag of rising health
care costs.

It doesn’t work for anyone who wants—and needs—real food: food that
nourishes the earth, communities, and individuals, both eaters and
producers.

If the logic of the industrial system is based on profit, the logic
of real food is founded on respect and balance. Real food isn't opposed
to profit, but it is opposed to profits that aren't shared fairly with
those who work the hardest to feed us. The Door of No Return
represents what’s we’re up against: a global industrial food economy 500
years in the making that exploits both people and land.

But there is also a second door: a wooden door on a busy London
street below a hand-painted sign that reads “print shop.” You’d probably
miss it if you were just passing by. If you were standing outside of it
in one morning in 1787, you might have seen 12 men, mostly Quakers, go
inside for a meeting. That meeting sparked the beginning of the British Anti-Slavery
Society, and the very first citizens' campaign of its kind. Its members
ran petitions, lobbied parliament, and staged book tours, pioneering
many of the social movement tactics we still use today. When those men
walked through that door, the whole world economy was built on slave
labor.

In 10 years, this group of 12 swelled to hundreds of thousands. And
in just a few decades, it did the unthinkable: It ended the slave trade
throughout the British Empire.

To imagine a world without slavery then would be like imagining a
world without oil today—and who would be crazy enough to propose that?

And yet in one generation, it came to pass. Those activists had no
knowledge of the future, but they did have their conviction of what was
right and what was wrong.

This second door represents something that could be cliché if it
weren’t demonstrably, factually true: that a small group of committed
people can, in fact, change the world.

This is the spirit that sparked the Real Food Challenge: a project
that re-imagines a cafeteria tray as a tool for social change. It's just
one face of a larger movement that is pressing for a just and
sustainable food economy.

In 2006, I started to meet college students who were active on their
campuses. They were pushing for local food and asking for fair trade
coffee and organic produce. A group of us from all around the country,
from Brown University to UC Santa Cruz, started talking and realized
that we might accomplish more if we joined forces.

We realized that colleges and universities in this country spend over
$5 billion each year to feed their students. What if we could shift
how that money was being spent? Instead of lining the pockets of the
biggest and worst food companies, why not support smaller farms and
socially responsible business? Why not invest in a real food economy?

We thought that shift might actually be possible because students are
paying customers of their schools. But it would depend on strong
leadership from students themselves.

A Real Food Commitment

Alex Sligar grew up in rural Washington State. When he was a kid,
his father lost his farm and ended up working in a nearby feedlot.
Alex’s brothers both went into the military and served bravely in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Alex was on the same track until he got inspired to
serve his country in a different way—by joining the food movement. As a
junior at Eastern Washington University, he started a campaign to buy
more regional food for his campus so that hard-working people, like his
dad, could continue to work the land with dignity.

Alex was joined by another student named Mohamud Omar. Mohamud came
from Somalia and had never considered himself an activist. But now,
while famine ravaged his home country and his family faced obstacles to
health and food access in the United States, Mohamud came to recognize
food access as "the most important issue in my life right now.”

Together, Alex and Mohamud and their teammates have called for
transparency in purchasing at their university, and have gained access
to the cafeteria’s records. Now they are urging the president to sign a
"Real Food Commitment" that would dedicate at least 20 percent of the
school's food budget to local, organic, and fair trade purchases.

In three years, the Real Food Challenge has built a network of 5,000
students like Alex and Mohamud at more than 350 schools. Students
supported by the Real Food Challenge have won $45 million of real food
purchasing commitments—including a commitment by the entire University
of California system. We’re estimating that in 10 years, $45 million
could become $1 billion of real food commitments—and that we could set a
precedent for other kinds of institutions.

It’s about more than dollars. It’s about the change that is
happening on the ground. It’s about Alan, an apple farmer in Rhode
Island who got a contract from Brown University. He was able to stay in
business and is now selling apples to elementary schools as well. It’s
about Eliza, a hog farmer in North Carolina, which is ground zero for
factory-farmed pigs. Unlike the factory farms around her, where the
animals are confined in tight cages over lagoons of their own excrement,
Eliza's pigs run free on their pasture. Students at UNC got the school
to start buying her pork. She’s now selling to five other institutions
in the area. Eliza and Alan and farmers like them are the backbone of
the real food economy to come.

This may be one of the fastest ways to catalyze change in the food
system. Using existing budgets, we can strike at multiple roots of the
problem. Where demand is fragmented, we can organize it. Where there
is too little clarity, we can create transparency and accountability.
Where policy is stalled, we can foster new leadership.

It’s a different kind of activism. Instead of voting with one
dollar, we’re voting with a billion. Instead of a boycott, we’re
mounting a “pro-cott,” strategically investing in the kind of food
system that will advance social, economic, and environmental justice.

If we succeed, we will see a profound transformation in the way our food is produced and consumed. Vacant lots will become vibrant gardens.
Family farms and food traditions will thrive. Hard work will be fairly
rewarded. Our climate and planet will sustain us. All people will
have access to food that is nourishing.

I think food is an incredible thing. I can’t think of anything else
that connects us more intimately to each other and the earth, not to
mention our health and our heritage.

Archimedes said : Give me a lever long enough, and a place to stand,
and I can move the world. Real food is that lever. Let’s take a stand.

This article was adapted from a speech delivered to the 2011 Bioneers conference.

Anim Steel is director of national programs and co-founder of The Food Project (TFP).
Prior to his work with TFP, Anim was a consultant with Economic
Development Assistance Consortium. He was a 1997 Coro Fellow in Public
Affairs, is 2010 Hunt Prime Movers Fellow, and was recently selected for
an Echoing Green Social Entrepreneurship.
SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/24-0

As the battle to get genetically engineered foods (or GMOs) labeled in California — a battle that could very well have an impact on labeling nationwide
— heats up, Big Food and Big Ag are working in concert to push back to
the tune of $25 million. The fight centers around Proposition 37, the
ballot initiative from the Right to Know Campaign that will go to vote in November.

If it passes, the result would be no small change. As Mother Jones’ Tom Philpott wrote recently:

Since GM corn, soy, sugar beets, and cotton (the oil
part) are processed into sweeteners, fats, and other additives that
suffuse the US food system, the initiative would require the labeling of
something like 80 percent of all non-organic processed food sold in
supermarkets.

As you can see in the chart below, The “Big 6” pesticide makers
(BASF, Bayer, Dow, Dupont, Monsanto, and Syngenta) are putting up big
money — especially Monsanto and Dupont (full name E. I. Dupont de Nemours). That’s
because all of the Big 6 either produce GMO seeds themselves, or
pesticides that work in concert with the seeds, so they have the biggest
vested interest in seeing GMO proliferation fly under the radar of most
Americans.

Where is the money going, exactly? Many of these companies are paying the same consultants who worked for the tobacco industry
to create “astroturf,” or fake grassroots groups that will do their
best to make it look like there’s a big crowd of citizens who think
labeling is a bad idea. And they’ll undoubtedly convince many voters.
This Reuters article that ran yesterday predicts a close battle.

Monsanto doesn't want you to know it has tinkered with your food. (photo: Food Watch)

Top 10 Lies Told by Monsanto on GMO Labeling in California

By Michele Simon, Reader Supported News

23 August 12

he battle in California over Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods containing GMOs, is really heating up. Millions of dollars are already being poured into the opposition campaign, with much of it going to former Big Tobacco shills.

Over at GMO HQ, Monsanto recently posted this missive
called "Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, The California Labeling
Proposal," in which the biotech giant explains why it is opposing the
measure (to the tune of $4.2 million so far).

Even for a corporation not exactly known for its honesty and transparency, this brief webpage
is riddled with deception and outright falsehoods about the initiative
and its proponents. Here are the 10 most blatant examples:

1) The law "would require a warning label on food products."

No warning label would be required. Rather, the words
"partially produced with genetic engineering" or "may be partially
produced with genetic engineering" would be required on the back of the
package -- similar to what is now required for ingredient or allergen
labeling. For whole foods, like the sweet corn coming soon to a Walmart near you,
a sign would be posted on the store shelf with the words "genetically
engineered." The aim is simply to offer consumers additional information
about the contents of the foods they purchase.

2) "The safety and benefits of these ingredients are well established."

Unfortunately, no long-term studies exist on either
the safety or benefits of GMO ingredients, so Monsanto has no basis for
making such a claim. Indeed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does
not even require safety studies of genetically engineered foods.
Meanwhile, some independent studies raise questions about links to allergies and other potential health risks.

3) "The American Medical Association just
re-affirmed that there is no scientific justification for special
labeling of bioengineered foods."

This statement, while true, is taken out of context
and is misleading because the AMA also (for the first time) called for
mandatory premarket safety studies of GMOs. As Consumers Union recently
noted in its reaction to AMA's announcement, labeling and testing logically go together:

The AMA's stance on mandatory labeling isn't consistent
with its support for mandatory pre-market safety assessments. If
unexpected adverse health effects, such as an allergic reaction, happen
as a result of GE, then labeling could perhaps be the only way to
determine that the GE process was linked to the adverse health effect.

4) Food companies "have had the choice" to use GM ingredients.

Choice is a good thing; however, consumers have never
had the choice. Prop 37 will give consumers a long-overdue choice about
eating genetically engineered food.

5) "FDA says that such labeling would be inherently misleading to consumers."

Of course FDA refuses to require GMO labeling, thanks
to Monsanto's arm-twisting that began more than 20 years ago. Food
Democracy Now's Dave Murphy explained
the FDA decision in May upon its 20-year anniversary, which came as a
result of a broader deregulatory push by the first Bush administration:

Twenty years ago this week, then-Vice President Dan Quayle announced the FDA's policy on genetically engineered food as part of his "regulatory relief initiative." As Quayle explained
in the 1992 press conference, the American biotechnology industry would
reap huge profits "as long as we resist the spread of unnecessary
regulations."

Dan Quayle's 1992 policy announcement is premised
on the notion that genetically engineered crops are "substantially
equivalent" to regular crops and thus do not need to be labeled or
safety tested. The policy was crafted by Michael Taylor, a former
Monsanto lawyer who was hired by the Bush FDA to fill the newly created
position of deputy commissioner of policy.

Five years earlier,
then-Vice President George H.W. Bush visited a Monsanto lab for a photo
op with the developers of Roundup Ready crops. According to a video report
of the meeting, when Monsanto executives worried about the approval
process for their new crops, Bush laughed and told them, "Call me. We're
in the dereg businesses. Maybe we can help."

Call they did. It's typical for corporations to get
their policy agenda approved through back-channel lobbying and revolving
door appointments and then point to the magical policy outcome as
evidence of scientific decision-making.

6) "Consumers have broad food choices today, but could be denied these choices if Prop 37 prevails."

There is no basis in logic that consumers could be
denied food choices. Indeed, Proposition 37 actually broadens the
meaningful food choices available through greater transparency. Right
now, people are eating in the dark.

7) "Interestingly, the main proponents of
Proposition 37 are special interest groups and individuals opposed to
food biotechnology who are not necessarily engaged in the production of
our nation's food supply."

In fact, quite a large number of food producers,
farmers and others very much "engaged in the production of our nation's
food supply" support the campaign. (See the growing list of
endorsements.) Speaking of "special interest groups" wouldn't that label
apply to the likes of Monsanto and all the industrial food producers
who oppose Proposition 37?

8) "Beneath their right to know slogan is a deceptive marketing campaign aimed at stigmatizing modern food production."

"Modern food production" -- is that Monsanto's latest
euphemism for scientifically altering the genetic code of the food
supply? In truth, nothing is hidden "beneath" the Right to Know
campaign, that's all it's about. But because Monsanto has no good
argument for why consumers don't have the right to know how their food
is produced, it has to resort to distracting deceptions.

9) "[Proponents] opinions are in stark contrast with leading health associations."

Another look at the long list of Prop 37 endorsements reveal that Monsanto and friends are actually out of step with leading health associations, such as:

American Public Health Association

American Medical Students Association

American Academy of Environmental Medicine

Physicians for Social Responsibility, California chapters

California Nurses Association

10) "The California proposal would serve the
purposes of a few special interest groups at the expense of the majority
of consumers."

Again, logic defies this talking point, especially
since all polling indicates a "majority of consumers" want GMO food to
be labeled. Indeed, the most recent California poll shows the
proposition winning by a 3-to-1 margin. No wonder Monsanto has to resort
to such nonsensical talking points.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Shopping Guide to Avoiding Organic Foods with Carrageenan

If you suffered from gastrointestinal symptoms that improved or disappeared
after cutting carrageenan from your diet,
fill out a questionnaire to help us and medical
researchers better understand the effects of carrageenan on public health.

Always check ingredient lists carefully, and note that ingredients are
not required by law to be listed on alcoholic
beverages, which may contain carrageenan. In fact, carrageenan is commonly used
to clarify beer but is not listed on the label.

If you come across organic products and/or brands utilizing Carrageenan
that are not yet listed, please forward specific information to us by emailing
cultivate@cornucopia.org

Organic Dairy

Buttermilk with Carrageenan

Buttermilk without Carrageenan

Natural By Nature

Clover Stornetta

Friendship Brand

Kalona Supernatural

Organic Valley

Chocolate Milk With Carrageenan

Chocolate Milk without Carrageenan

Clover Stornetta

Horizon

Kalona Supernatural (Kalona has committed to removing carrageenan, and will
be carrageenan-free by the end of 2012. Check ingredients list)

Natural By Nature

Organic Valley

Publix

Simply Smart

Castle Rock Organic Farms

Crystal Ball Farms

Strafford Organic Creamery

Trickling Springs Creamery

Cottage Cheese with Carrageenan

Cottage Cheese without Carrageenan

365 Whole Foods (lowfat and fat free)

Clover Stornetta

Friendship Brand

Horizon (regular and lowfat)

Publix

Trader Joe’s

Kalona Supernatural (regular and lowfat)

Nancy’s

Organic Valley (regular and lowfat)

Cream with Carrageenan

Cream without Carrageenan

Clover Stornetta (whipped cream in a can)

Horizon

Natural by Nature (whipped cream in a can)

Organic Valley (Ultra Pasteurized)

Publix

Butterworks Farm

Cedar Summit Farm

Clover Stornetta

Kalona Supernatural

Natural By Nature (heavy cream)

Organic Valley (Pasteurized)

Strauss Family Creamery

Trickling Springs Creamery

Eggnog with Carrageenan

Eggnog without Carrageenan

Clover Stornetta

Organic Valley (Organic Valley has committed to removing carrageenan from
its eggnog by the end of 2012)

(No organic kefir found with carrageenan – carrageenan is sometimes used in
conventional kefir)

Butterworks Farm

Cedar Summit (pourable yogurt)

Fresh Made

Helios

Lifeway

Nancy’s

Organic Pastures

Organic Valley (pourable yogurt)

Shelf-Stable Milk with Carrageenan (“milk
boxes”)

Shelf-Stable Milk without Carrageenan (“milk
boxes”)

Horizon (chocolate, vanilla and strawberry flavors)

Organic Valley (chocolate flavored)

President’s Choice

Horizon (lowfat)

Organic Valley (regular, lowfat, strawberry flavored,
vanilla)

Sour Cream with Carrageenan

Sour Cream without Carrageenan

Horizon (lowfat)

Natural By Nature

Publix

365 Whole Foods

Clover Stornetta

Friendship Brand

Horizon (regular only)

Kalona Supernatural

Organic Valley (regular and lowfat)

Nancy’s

Strauss Family Creamery

Wallaby Organic

Yogurt with Carrageenan

Yogurt without Carrageenan

Stonyfield (Oikos – caramel flavor only, Squeezers – all flavors)

Horizon (Tuberz™)

Butterworks

Cedar Summit (pourable)

Crystal Balls Farm

Hails Family Farm

Hawthorne Valley Farm

Horizon (all except Tuberz™)

Kalona Supernatural

Nancy’s

Organic Valley (pourable)

Redwood Hill Farms

Seven Stars

Stonyfield (all except caramel Oikos and Squeezers)

Straus Family Creamery

Wallaby Organic

Dairy Alternative – many of these popular brands are “natural”
(conventional) and therefore not organic

Almond Milk with Carrageenan

Almond Milk without Carrageenan

Almond Breeze (Blue Diamond)

Pacific Foods

So Delicious

Trader Joe’s (aseptic)

365 Whole Foods

Almond Dream

Natura (8 flavors)

OMilk NYC

Silk PureAlmond (including chocolate-flavored)

Westsoy

Trader Joe’s (refrigerated)

Chocolate Soymilk with Carrageenan

Chocolate Soymilk without
Carrageenan

365 Whole Foods

Eden Foods (Eden Foods has committed to removing carrageenan from all its
products. Check ingredients list)

Good Karma

Organic Valley

Nature’s Promise

Silk

Soy Dream

Soy Slender

Trader Joe’s

Westsoy

Tofu Shop

Silk (in single-serve, shelf-stable packaging)

Coconut Milk/Water with Carrageenan

Coconut Milk/Water without
Carrageenan

Almond Breeze Coconut Blend (Blue Diamond)

Coconut Dream

Lakewood (juice)

Silk Pure Coconut

So Delicious

Trader Joe’s

Zico (chocolate flavored)

Amy and Brian (juice)

Blue Monkey

Coco Libre

Knudsen’s (coconut nectar)

Naked Juice (coconut water)

Native Forest

Roland Coconut

Thai Kitchen

Tropical Traditions (cream)

Yoga Earth Purity (powder beverage)

Flax Milk with Carrageenan

Flax Milk without Carrageenan

365 Whole Foods

Good Karma

Frozen Dessert (non-dairy) with
Carrageenan

Frozen Dessert (non-dairy) without
Carrageenan

Almond Dream

Good Karma

Purely Decadent

Rice Dream

So Delicious

Soy Dream

Tempt (Living Harvest)

365 Whole Foods

Julie’s

Lifeway

Luna and Larry’s

Nadamoo

Natural Choice Fruit Bars

Organic Nectars

Sambazon

Hazelnut Milk with
Carrageenan

Hazelnut Milk without
Carrageenan

Pacific Foods

Hemp Milk with Carrageenan

Hemp Milk without
Carrageenan

Tempt (Living Harvest)

Pacific Foods

Oat Milk with Carrageenan

Oat Milk without
Carrageenan

Pacific Foods

Simpli

Rice Milk with Carrageenan

Rice Milk without Carrageenan

365 Whole Foods

Good Karma

Pacific Foods

Rice Dream (Unsweetened)

Ryza

Westsoy

B.R.A.T. (all flavors)

Nature’s Promise

Rice Dream (Original)

Trader Joe’s

Soy Creamer with Carrageenan

Soy Creamer without Carrageenan

Silk

Trader Joe’s

Wildwood

Organic Valley

Soymilk with Carrageenan

Soymilk without
Carrageenan

365 Whole Foods

8th Continent

Earth Balance

Great Value (Walmart)

Nature’s Promise

O Organics – Safeway (refrigerated original and vanilla)

Organic Valley

Pearl Soymilk (Kikkoman)

Pacific Foods

Publix

Silk

Soy Dream

Soy Slender

Sunrich

Trader Joe’s

Vermont Soy

Vitasoy

Wegman’s

Westsoy (Organic Plus, Nonfat)

Wildwood

ZenSoy

Eden Soy (Eden Foods has committed to removing carrageenan from all its
products. Currently, most soymilk is already carrageenan-free, but EdenBlend and
chocolate flavored soymilk still contains carrageenan. Check ingredients
list)

Organic Prepared Foods

AVOID: Conventional/“Natural” Foods with Carrageenan

Below is a partial list of conventional products containing carrageenan. This
list is not comprehensive, but provides examples of categories of foods where
you may not expect to find carrageenan, like nutrition bars (Balance Bars),
chocolate bars (Enjoy Life), and chicken strips (Butterball and Hormel).

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

The Great Organic Deceivers

Which
organic brands really believe in organic—and which are working behind
the scenes to betray natural health consumers? It’s time for a boycott. Action Alert!Many
natural and organic brands are actually owned by huge conglomerates
that don’t support sustainable, organic, non-GMO, non-toxic agriculture.
In fact, their product labels are often designed to mislead consumers
just so they can grab a share of the lucrative health-conscious consumer
market.Even
worse, many of the conglomerate companies that produce so-called
natural foods—and even some labeled “organic”—are allied with the
biotech industry fighting by any means to defeat “Label GMO,” a.k.a.
Prop 37, the California Right to Know 2012 Ballot Initiative.
Why are they doing such a thing? Because they sell more food that has
GMO ingredients than organic food, and don’t want consumers to have a
choice about the GMO. They especially don’t want consumers to know what
is actually in their so-called “natural” products.Keep in mind that the term “natural” has no legal or regulatory meaning at all: FDA has never created a definition for it and claims
that “it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’
because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the
product of the earth.” In fact, FDA even says high-fructose corn syrup is natural! “Natural” is nothing more than a marketing term, one that is in fact meaningless.You’d
think a “natural” food wouldn’t have genetically engineered
ingredients, but you’d be wrong. Kashi, which everywhere proclaims its
passion for “healthy, all-natural foods,” has GMO soy in its ingredients.
Kashi is owned by Kellogg, the multinational food manufacturing company
that produces everything from sugary cereals to Morningstar Farms
vegetarian products (some of which are organic but still use GMOs) to
Keebler cookies (filled with GMOs). The company has contributed $612,000
to defeat Prop 37 and keep GMO labels off their products.Sierra Mist Natural wears that moniker proudly because their soda is “made with real sugar and 100% natural flavors”! The brand is owned by PepsiCo, which has contributed more than $1 million to defeat Prop 37.What
you may not realize is that many organic brands have been snapped up by
Big Food companies; their ownership is deliberately hidden from
consumers. While they purport to have an environmental and
health-conscious mission, they completely undercut that claim by
fighting GMO labeling. Honest Tea, for example, is USDA-certified
organic. Yet Honest Tea is owned by Coca-Cola, which has also contributed more than $1 million to defeat Label GMO. We don’t think that’s very honest. Coke also owns Odwalla,
which produces “all-natural juices” and “nourishing protein bars,” and
supposedly supports sustainable agriculture. GMO is sustainable
agriculture?Silk
carries the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal on its soy milk, coconut
milk, and almond milk products. Both Silk and the Horizon Organic brand
tell their customers that the brands oppose GMOs. Yet both are owned
by Dean Foods, which has contributed $253,000 to defeat Label GMO.Lightlife
vegan and vegetarian foods is owned by ConAgra, which contributed
$520,000. Seeds of Change, the organic seed and food company, is owned
by candy giant Mars, which contributed $100,242 to defeat Label GMO.
General Mills, which owns Cascadian Farms Organic, Muir Glen, and
Larabar, contributed $520,000. Smucker, which owns R.W. Knudsen and
Santa Cruz Organic, contributed $387,000. The State of California has a website where you can see exactly which companies are fighting hardest to keep their GMO foods from being labeled.What about groups like the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association), and the Organic Trade Association?
Surely they’re all about protecting consumers from GMOs, right? No.
Both of these organizations are funded by the very same Big Food
companies that have made contributions to defeat the Label GMO
initiative.Back in 1994, Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, told the Kansas City Star,
“If you put a label on genetically engineered food, you might as well
put a skull and crossbones on it.” And that’s precisely what Big Food is
so afraid of. Consumers will generally avoid GMOs if they can, and they
won’t buy foods containing them. Can you imagine the consumer outrage
if the labels on their favorite “natural” foods suddenly declare that
their ingredients are genetically engineered?The Cornucopia Institute has developed a shoppers’ guide to help you tell the sheep from the wolves in this battle.In 2008, the global organic industry generated $52 billion.
Organic foods account for 2.6% of the US food market, and it’s growing
at a rate of nearly 20% each year. Money talks. Tell the parent
companies of these brands of “natural” and organic foods—companies that
oppose your right to know what’s in your food—that if they want your
business, they can’t sell out organic values. We join with other friends in calling for a global boycott. We would suggest boycotting the following brands:

Alexia Foods

Bear Naked

Cascadian Farm Organics

French Meadow Organic Bakery

Gardenburger

Honest Tea

Horizon Organic

Izze Sparkling Juice

Kashi

Larabar

Lightlife

MorningStar Farms

Muir Glen Organics

Naked Juice

Odwalla

R.W. Knudsen

Santa Cruz Organic

Sierra Mist Natural

Silk

Instead, buy the following brands that have donated in support of Label GMO:

Amy’s

Baby’s Only Organic

Dr. Bronner’s

Eden

Lundberg

Nature’s Path Organic

Nutiva

Organic Valley

Straus Organic

Uncle Matt’s

Right
now, please sign our warning message to the “natural food” companies
trying to stop you from knowing what products contain GMO.

And also sign our letter of thanks to those companies which are supporting the initiative.